Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.

Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.

Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.

Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

Templates that are unused and have been created more than 3 - 6 months ago should be able to be deleted by speedy deletion criteria, or moved back to user space. In my opinion it's a waste of time at WP:TfD to have to propose, then wait for multiple wikipedians to contribute to discussion about a template that's not actually used.

This proposal could be tweaked slightly - eg caveats being if there is an obvious use case or if it's an intended article to move back to user space - but I think the principle still holds. Thoughts? (I will ping TfD). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not given this proposal any deep thought yet, but my off-the-cuff reaction is that we'd need to be careful about templates that are designed to be substituted - it could be difficult to determine how often those are used. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This should be like something like WP:C1 IMO; if a template has been tagged for more than 7 days and remains unused, it may be deleted; unless there's an indication the template is meant to be substed. Perhaps also the template cannot be deleted if it is less than 3 months old. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Question: How often (= requirement #3 for new SD criteria) are such templates really nominated for deletion? Looking at WP:TFD now, there seem to be but a few templates nominated that are truly unused, so why can't TFD handle them? Regards SoWhy 10:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be against any such criteria for speedy deletion; unused does not mean unusable. It is a subjective label and therefor inherently controversial. For example: I have never published an edit using {{pronoun}} but I have used it hundreds of times, without publishing, to determine the correct pronoun to use in various discussions. It's why I can say that Bsherr is spot on with his comment and that I agree with everything he said therein.--John Cline (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What Bsherr said. Many unused templates may have interesting history or potential, and deletion might not be the most useful thing to do with them. Sure, navboxes that haven't been used for years can usually be deleted. But not all unused templates, and not speedily. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - some templates may be appropriate to keep around to allow historical versions of pages to view properly, others are subst:-only and not necessarily marked as such. To prevent these templates from being deleted, we need to bring unused templates to TFD, not silently delete them. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

These proposals are unsuccessful. None of these proposals have received the high level of consensus expected of a policy proposal. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Renumber G13 to D1 and create the following new Draft CSD:

D2: Any draft that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article

Any draft that would fail any of the active criteria for speedy deletion of articles is valid under this criterion. When deleting or nominating a draft page under this criterion, remember to indicate which article CSD criterion applies to it. {{Db-d2|criterion}}

D3: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host

Pages in draftspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of draftspace, with the exception of plausible drafts. It applies regardless of the age of the page in question. {{Db-d3}}, {{Db-draftu5}}

Neutral. If D2 or D3 pass (I don't think they should, but they might) then this makes sense. If if they don't, then there is no benefit but no significant harm either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on the comments below, I'm now moving to an unconditional oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

G13 is (particularly recently) about more than just draftspace. This would be limiting, and goes against some very recent consensus. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not just a technical change, it's a huge alteration to the scope of the criterion. G13 applies to draftspace and AfC submissions in userspace. Either D applies only to draftspace or it applies to drafts in all namespaces. Both of those changes have been proposed here in the past and haven't gained consensus. Hut 8.5 18:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as this limits G13 over userspace - we should be expanding G13 over more userspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. As explained below, I oppose the idea of an omnibus criterion like the proposed D2 for the draftspace. I think it is preferable to modify the existing "A" criteria to say that they apply to the draftspace than to create a new "D" criterion (if there is consensus that "A" criteria should apply to draftspace, which I oppose on the merits). Therefore, G13 should remain a "G" criterion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unnecessary if D2 blows out as D3 has Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - G13 applies to all pages in the draftspace and those in the userspace that bear an afc template. It applies to such pages regardless of whether or not they are "drafts." — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Amory. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)wumbolo^^^ 13:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Support regardless of D2 and D3. This is about drafts, not about General stuff. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose D2 would defeat the whole point of draft space. Draft space is supposed to be a safe place to work on content without the threat of imminent deletion or a requirement to meet mainspace standards immediately. We do speedily delete active drafts but only if the content is actively harmful (e.g. copyright violations, BLP violations). There is no point in having draft space if it's as easy to delete a draft as an article. Hut 8.5 17:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support but as I've said previously we should just extend the A-series criteria to pages in draft space. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support so we can better focus on the good drafts. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - basically per SoWhy. This expansion would make it easier to delete a draft than it is to delete any other page on Wikipedia. That is backwards.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Per Hut, applying A criteria to draftspace entirely defeats the purpose of draftspace. Might as well propose to do away with the whole namespace in that case. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. The point of draftspace is to allow editors to work on stuff in peace and give them time to overcome problems that would lead to (speedy) deletion in articlespace. If we allow the same criteria to apply there as we do in other namespaces, we can effectively just close draftspace completely because there would be no tangible difference anymore. Regards SoWhy 16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not basing my opinion on other reviewers. I'm a deletionist by nature and more often then not think we keep amazing amounts of garbage here we don't need. I've authored quite a few articles and work AFC myself but I don't see why we need this when this could easily use WP:IAR in egregious cases. No slight to Legacypac but I'm not seeing the need here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The most active managers of drafts support extending U5 to draft space There are thousands of AFC Drafts plus unsubmitted junk we could clear out without REFUND or MfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Draftspace and Userspace big difference. I misunderstood and change to support draft space csd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Serious proposals to apply A* criteria to drafts almost always paired them with a timeout, either since the draft was created or since it was last edited. Now that G13 applies to everything in the draft namespace instead of just the AFC ones, this is dead in the water. —Cryptic 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. There needs to be a space outside of userspace where articles that are at risk for deletion in mainspace can be developed further.Vexations (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Draft space is a wild west of junk. Drafts are quickly mirrored on other sites and we should manage it more carefully. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how it's our problem if other sites mirror such content? Regards SoWhy 19:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of us volunteer here because we believe that building Wikipedia is a service to humanity. Some of us are against allowing Wikipedia to be a tool to spread spam and misinformation. Other editors oppose every effort to make cleaning up junk easier perhaps because they love misinformation and the abuse of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure most of us believe in building Wikipedia to benefit all people but I'm still not seeing how other sites mirroring such content figures into that. Regards SoWhy 14:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose although I think we are more or less already at this point or past it and that draftspace would be better off abandoned, see WP:Don't use draftspace. But it's worth opposing because plenty of people still do use draftspace, and many pages suggest doing so, although the description of it they give is highly misleading. This proposal would kick problematic draft deletions into overdrive and only make the problem worse. A2soup (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Per SoWhy. But additionally, I oppose the idea of an omnibus criterion like this for the draftspace. I think it is preferable to modify the existing "A" criteria to say that they apply to the draftspace than to create a new "D" criterion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support, but make it applicable only to drafts submitted to WP:AFC. If the topic is thoroughly non-notable, there's no point in retaining it and implicitly inviting the submitter to work on non-viable drafts. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose draft space should be a respite from rapid deletions such as no context, A7, G4, A11. Other criteria such as G11, G12, hoax, attack pages are commonly used on drafts already so there is no need for this as it would be to the detriment of partly written articles that may turn out fine after a pause, there is no time limit except 6 months and that should remain, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A11 can be addressed through editing. For example A11 doesn't apply to articles which indicate that the subject is important or significant. That could be done by adding additional prose or references. Draft space is intended to be a safe space to allow article development like this without the "FIX IT NOW OR IT GETS DELETED!" attitude of mainspace. Hut 8.5 19:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - e.g. A10 should not apply to draftspace as it can be used to draft things that are better than or may appear to duplicate something that exists (but actually does not), while A7 and A9 should not apply because contributors should be given time to establish indications of importance. Even A3 should not apply as contributors should be given time to add content to drafts. Draftspace is for potentially encyclopedic works of progress of most kinds, while the mainspace is for encyclopedic content that meets minimum established standards; spaces which have purposes that are at odds should not share the same set of speedy deletion criteria. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The draft space is a place to create articles which can subsequently be moved into the mainspace. More specifically, it's designed to allow a user time to create the article, source it an ensure that it would survive in the mainspace. This proposed CSD would defeat this purpose. A draft should only be deleted if either it has been abandoned for long enough that it will probably never be improved, or if it's so bad that it's blatantly obvious no article could possibly come from it. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this defeats the purpose of the Draft space. If we make the A Speedy deletion criterion applicable there it is no different than the mainspace. ~ GB fan 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, but would support extending A2, A5 and A10 (duplicate articles) to draftspace, or even generally --Danski454 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – this undermines the purpose of draftspace, especially criteria such as A7 and G4. Bradv🍁 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: As Legacypac has not answered the questions asked by SoWhy and myself above regarding their rationale, please could you do so instead as you are using the same rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No amount of discussion, evidence or logic will ever convince SoWhy to support any change to policy or practice that makes deletion of junk even slightly easier. They have next to zero experience at MfD or in Draft space so I just dismiss their useless comments on how these areas work. You asked a "question" about throwing babies out. The question is too unclear to answer very easily but in general any criteria or process could be misused in any possible way so we don't avoid making life reasonably easy because someone might do something wrong or stupid some day. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see SoWhy's comments as useless at all - rather the exact opposite. Unless and until you can objectively define "junk" in such a way that it doesn't allow the speedy deletion of content that should not be deleted (speedily or otherwise) then your ideas belong nowhere near the deletion process, regardless of how much easier it would make your life. There is a very good reason why the four requirements for new and expanded criteria at the top of this page are not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Junk = pages that would he deleted at MfD, and a little more broadly, abandoned stuff not suitable for article space which generally would also be deleted at MfD if we did not have G13. Opinion about process based on no experience with the process is not helpful, it is noise. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a definition, but it clearly fails requirements 1, 2 and 4 of the requirements for new criteria: It's not objective in the slightest, it's not uncontestable (much of what is deleted at MfD is not done unanimously and many nominations result in something other than deletion) and it's not non-redundant (G1, G2, G3, G10, G11, G12 and G13 exist). Given those failures I've not bothered to evaluate it regarding requirement 3. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - This seems to be the idea of a few of the regulars at MFD who like to go through draft space and tag stupid drafts for deletion. We don't need to delete stupid drafts, just to let them time out. The Reject option for reviewers is now available to get rid of stupid drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick SNOW oppose. No stunning arguments have been made since the last discussion on this was closed 5 days ago with general opposition to the proposal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I generally supported the idea but I have to agree with the most recent release of Hut here, it doesn't accomplish anything to re-test consensus so frequently. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Any U5 page that isn't already speedily deleted is deleted at MfD, where virtually none of these drafts survive. Makes sense for it to have its own csd criterion for draftspace. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

When I looked at the actual stats for the previous discussion, I found that around a quarter of Draft: pages nominated at MfD for being a NOTWEBHOST violation did not have unanimous consensus to delete. For a CSD to be appropriate it needs to be 100% or very close to that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - basically per SoWhy. This expansion would make it easier to delete a draft than it is to delete any other page on Wikipedia. That is backwards.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose Editors should be given some reasonable amount of leeway to craft and improve their article. This is solving a problem that doesn't exist and makes worse some problems that do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We literally just had this discussion, so oppose per that. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note I've rearranged the discussion to make it more obvious that there are two proposals. @SoWhy, Hell in a Bucket, Tazerdadog, and Pythoncoder: you should move your comments to the appropriate section. I think they all belong in D2, but I would rather you move them yourselves. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added another header as there are actually three proposals here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We've had a banner month here at WT:CSD, with two new criteria (G14, R4) and one expanded (G13). It turns out that there are a lot of pages that potentially need updating whenever this occurs, not all of which are quick, easy, or obvious. Having gone through some of them twice and just discovering others, I thought it would be helpful if we had a list of things to do for future reference. I've started that at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Creating a new criterion and would welcome any improvements or additions. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Good idea and good job! I think the last (non-exceptional) criterion created before these were years ago explaining the lack of a written-down process for new criterion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the last ones were G13 and A11 in in 2013 and U5 in 2014. Maybe a tad different since these new ones were each previously existing but part of G6, but that just means less work this go-round. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 18:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic306 recently inserted companies explicit into the policy, which I reverted. My revert rationale, for the onlookers, is that companies are a kind of organization, and so calling them out explicitly in the policy is unnecessary creepiness without a particularly good rationale. I was subsequently reverted by Atlantic, and he left a comment on my talk page. Copy-pasted here:

Hi, the A7 template lists companies seperate from organisations, and there are also different wiki projects for companies (mainly for profit) and organisations (mainly not for profit) so there is a distinction, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The template follows from the policy, not the other way around. If the template is inconsistent, an edit to make it consistent is the correct path here, not an edit to the policy.

Different WikiProjects is an irrelevant question here, as their structure does not change how policy is applied. Even if it is relevant, company vice organization is not correctly distinguished by whether they are for-profit or not. (Perhaps NPO versus company might be.)

The company references have been removed since, possibly by accident given the rationale of that revert. Regardless, I'll not revert again under my belief that it's a bad-sad-bad idea to be reverting on PAG pages. --Izno (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, in my view the template is justified in making it clear that companies and organisations are both included. The term organisation is distinct in many countries as being not for profit concerns so not including companies. I believe it is best to be absolutely clear that companies are included in A7, and the fact that companies and organisations have seperate WikiProjects is evidence that Wikipedia defines them as seperate categories, so in conclusion it is better to be pedantic than misleading, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Atlantic306's interpretation, and this is IIRC how we've generally handled things at AfC in the past. "Organization" means a non-profit, "company" means a for-profit. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation but seeing as a significant number of people might make such a distinction, explicitly mentioning companies is not a really CREEPy addition. Possibly the wording can be tweaked a bit, e.g. real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event? Regards SoWhy 09:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Commercial organization" and "non-commercial organization" is a bit unusual vocabulary. Would anyone mind if we changed "commercial or non-commercial organization" to either "business or other organization" or "company or other organization"? --Bsherr (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this clarifies things a bit; and consider that our notability guideline is called "organizations and companies"; I don't see how it is creep since the actual meaning/scope of A7 is not extended. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If the text doesn't cause creep of some sort, it isn't necessary to the intent. See also answer below. --Izno (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Including companies would be redundant, so I agree with Izno's rationale. Adam9007 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Galobtter - the definitions should match our notability guidelines, as it's not necessarily redundant. SportingFlyertalk 23:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In which case we should rename the notability guideline. Its current title suggests that companies are not organisations, even though they are. Adam9007 (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

That our notability guideline on the point has both in its name is irrelevant to this page since this page isn't about notability. --Izno (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it's irrelevant. Consistency is desirable, even between different pages, and particularly in the project namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

But it is another example of the differenct use of the terms in common usage despite the Oxford definition. To avoid confusion IMO it would be best to adopt SoWhy's proposed minor rewording, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Galobtter. I would suggest using exactly the same wording, "organizations and companies". I know companies are organizations by definition, but it is so rare to call businesses by that term instead of a term like company more specific to their commercial nature, that I think many people would be confused. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the following wording: "No indication of importance (people, animals, companies or organizations, web content, events)". I would be okay with "and" instead of "or".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23--this makes it clear, and is not a change from present policy or practice. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Db-t3}} provides for speedy deletion of a template that duplicates the function of another template. However, increasingly, templates are rendered redundant by the creation of Lua modules (usually the very top level template isn't redundant – it invokes the module – but its 'support' templates are, because they are coded in the module). I've tweaked {{Db-t3/sandbox}} to allow |module=; you can see it in action at Template:Add new taxon. The sandbox version can be made live if there is consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems in-line with the spirit of the criterion. Redundant templates should be speedy deleteable. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, well as there's one supporter and no opposition, and I think this is just a technical response to the emergence of Lua, I will make the sandbox version live. It can always be reverted if objectors appear. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

To what an extent is it acceptable for an admin to be performing G13 deletions (particularly a large number of them) on sight, that is, without anyone having tagged them beforehand and without the creator getting notified? – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Creators should definitely be notified whether or not it is on sight, as they may not even be able to find their old drafts if they aren't notified.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

G13 is based on bright-line criteria (untouched for > 6 months - yes/no) unlike some of the other CSDs which require an opinion. As such a second-pair-of-eyes won't make any difference and on sight deletion seems fair enough. Notification, with the offer of WP:REFUND, are a basic courtesy... perhaps even a basic decency. Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea is to get at least two sets of eyes on a draft to see whether it's salvageable and should be deferred. (Besides which, anyone who watches WP:REFUND will be able to tell you how often creators can't figure out the names of their drafts even when they are notified.) —Cryptic 12:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

G13 deletions should be done only by bot. The bot gives the author a prior notification, and then the deletion notification that includes the instructions to get it WP:REFUNDed on request. Is the bot, once hasteurbot, taken over by someone else, not functioning? Ad hoc G13 deletions serve no useful purpose and increase the chance of bad G13s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(You're conflating taggings and deletions here. I know what you meant, but it's not helpful.)

FWIW, it's been some time since I saw a G13 tag that was bot-applied. But then, the G13 category's mostly been tending to instantly empty by the time I finish reading through the first draft in it, so. —Cryptic 13:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The bot is User:Bot0612. As far as I remember, its G13-tagging task didn't end up getting approved because there were minor issues that the bot operator, User:Firefly, didn't address as they had stopped editing by that time. This bot has another task for notifying creators, and that one seems to be working alright, but it only affects AfC submissions. Drafts that aren't done via AfC, as well as dratfified articles, don't seem to result in bot notifications, but the drafts get G13'ed anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I object to bot-deletions of G13 because, disdainful of draftspace junk as I am, a bot deletion would lead to indiscriminate deletion of even good drafts that happened to not be edited for six months. G13, although it almost invariably is treated as such, is not mandatory. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's up to an administrator whether they want to CSD tag an article for someone else to delete or to delete it when they come across an article that qualifies for deletion. Should G13 be different from this? Natureium (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

When I asked the question that started this thread, the focus was intended to be on the without notifying the creator bit, not so much on the without anyone else having tagged it beforehand. There's always an element of courtesy in notifying people if any of their stuff is about to get deleted, but if G13 is different from other speedy criteria, it's the fact that the creator of the page can remove the speedy tag. You know, a G13 deletion depends entirely on the creator doing, or not doing, anything about it: the only thing making a given page eligible for deletion is the presumption that its creator has abandoned it. There's no way to find out if this is indeed the case unless you nudge them; How is a newbie supposed to know that anything they don't touch in six months will disappear? – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)